Do Wealthy Kids Live at Home Longer?

By

Robert Frank

Apr 24, 2012 4:24 pm ET

The trend toward more adults living with their parents is usually framed as a problem of the middle class. With little money or job prospects, and lots of student loans, today’s working-class kids have little choice but to move back in with mom and dad.

Everett Collection

But a new study in Australia suggests that wealthy kids may actually be living at home longer than their non-wealthy and even poor counterparts.

According to the study, young adults from privileged backgrounds are more likely to live at home than their less privileged peers. The study found that 75% of 20-year-olds from privileged backgrounds still lived at home. By contrast, more than a third of 20-year-olds from welfare families no longer depended on their parents.

It all boils down to whether the family can provide support or not, according to the study, by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.

“Some families lack the necessary resources,” said Deborah Cobb-Clark, the director of the Institute and co-author of the study, “while others may simply be unwilling to continue to support their children after they reach adulthood.”

This makes sense, of course. You’re more likely to move back home to the McMansion if mom and dad also give you use of the AmEx and Mercedes. Add to that the problem of the age gap in wealth and issues of motivation for kids who’ve had everything growing up, and you’ve got a recipe for lots of affluent kids seeking refuge back home rather than being unemployed on their own.

This is probably not as true for the super-rich, of course. They can afford to buy their kids $88 million dorm rooms. (Though the kids are still “financially dependent” even if they live apart).

Do you think wealthy kids are more likely to live at home than non-wealthy kids?